[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
What disturbs me is that, for this and many other interpretations, there is a mass of official rulings and accepted interpretations that are NOT AVAILABLE to the managers. It's the functional equivalent of going to court with a copy of the law but not having access to the case law. In court we have our own advocate who is supposed to keep up on the case law. Are managers supposed to hire an umpire to sit in the dugout and advise them of the rules interpretations?

I agree that most managers are not aware of these interpretations, Rich, but then neither are "most" umpires. They are equally available to both groups, but with a few notable exceptions (yourself included) managers don't frequent internet message boards in the same way that some umpires do. Learning the rules and their interpretations is only, apparently, a small part of the manager's thinking when it comes to taking his team to the top. Those here who know and value the interpretations of PBUC, JEA and J/R are well and truly in the minority of umpires, too!

There is evidence for this lack of interest in rules among coaches/managers in my own country's coaching development program. There is literally NO provision for rules knowledge to be either taught or examined when an individual is advancing through the various coaching levels. A coach can progress right to the top of the formal structure of coaching expertise without being taught or examined on a single rule of the game. If the individual doesn't seek that knowledge out for themselves, as you have done, then it simply isn't provided. That doesn't mean it isn't available.

Although I realise your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you mentioned hiring umpires to sit in the dugout and provide interpretations, some coaches/managers already adopt a parallel strategy; they use the knowledge and experience of a particular player or assistant to fill the gaps. Unfortunately, that strategy also falls far short of the knowledge that the above average official possesses.

Furthermore, while some interpretations make sense, others don't.

Some have seemingly good rationale. Example: B-R misses first - beats the throw - treat as missed base.

Some seem to be of the "That don't make no sense Joe" variety. Example: Overunning first on a walk. A strict reading (and the LL and "Knotty Problems" interp) is that there is no exception in the rules. However, someone somewhere said "That doesn't make sense, he doesnt NEED to ocerrun first, let's call him out." Voila! Can't overrun on a walk now.

Some seem to be matters of umpire convenience. "I don't want to decide intent so I'll just always assume it was there."

On the interpretation about overrunning on a walk, I have to disagree that the rationale is as apparently subjective and disconnected as you claim. Even your LL and Knotty problems interpretations would acknowledge that any attempt to advance beyond 1st puts the runner who has overrun the base in jeopardy. All this interpretation does is to declare that since the batter-runner did not NEED to run to acquire 1st base on the walk, because the batter-runner was not in jeopardy while acquiring 1st base, the overrunning of the base MUST be prima facie evidence of the batter-runner's intent to advance thus putting him in jeopardy when he overruns the bag.

Remember, Rich, that this is a PRO interpretation and not a LL or low level amateur ruling. That should be born in mind any time it looks like the interpretation is not a logical as you would wish it to be from your own social source of reference.

Next time the thought "dumb coach" crosses an umpires mind, he should ask himself when and how the manager ever had the opportunity to learn the interpretation.

I dare say this approach is reserved for those times when coaches argue that the hands are part of the bat, or some other equally "obvious" piece of mythology. I for one would never suggest a coach is dumb only because he doesn't know the latest PBUC ruling on 4th out appeals following a force play tag past the base. Nevertheless, you point is taken that coaches may not be in the same position as umpires to be aware that such interpretations exist. That's not a problem of availability but rather a question of environment.

Cheers,